The problem is that American government is now increasingly responsive
to special interests and not the public interest. This is why many people are
frustrated and disappointed with our political system. Instead of a democracy where
all citizens have an equal say in the governing process, some organizations and
individuals have a disproportionate and unfair influence over what the government
does. The result is that the power and greed of the few too often win out over the
needs of the many. (Douglas J. Amy:
What is Really Wrong with Government)

~~~

A class action, class suit, or representative action
is a type of lawsuit
where one of the parties is a group of people who are represented collectively by a
member of that group. The class action originated in the United States and is still
predominantly a U.S. phenomenon, but several European countries with civil law, have
made changes in recent years to allow consumer organizations to bring claims on behalf
of consumers.

Because the public is the largest "consumer" of government, and that no one
person can actually Represent everyone, and neither can a select few by way of
some idealized proportionism; the people need to have a "Class Action Democracy"
with which it can collectively Represent itself, and the collective Will become
the law of the land. Whereas Class Action lawsuits allow harmed individuals
to band together and more effectively seek justice; the people need an established
Class Action type of Democracy which permits the public to collectively represent
itself in any and all government activities. Such a means is being promoted by the
call for a Cenocracy with a Cenocratic (Peoples Legislative Branch) Formula.

The usage of the word "class" should be a heads-up for Sociologists and Political
Scientists, even though some think the usage of the word "Scientists" is akin to
the usage of the word in the phrase "Church of Scientology". Pejoratives notwithstanding
the present context, the usage of the word "class" to distinguish the public as a
whole, is similar to its usage in the distant past when ruling members of society
viewed themselves as a separate, more important and privileged class. It was a
mindset that relied heavily on the usage of dichotomy. The usage of lower, middle
and upper classes when viewed as an intellectually exercise relying on trichotomy,
are thus rendered into superficialities with little value than some antiquated tactic
of dividing society so that social scientists might attempt some larger and deeper
grasp of social functions. With the majority of the public lumped into a single
"class", the mentality of those in authoritative product producing positions has
reverted to the mindset so readily noted in texts of described history. In short,
the whole of the public is being classed as a type of cannon fodder, with the word
"cannon" being replaced with drug experimentation, medical procedure, economic,
social program, etc...

A "Class Action Democracy" is sorely needed in America, Britain, China and elsewhere.
The people the world over are in desperate need of a Cenocracy with a Cenocratic formula.

The "Class" in the phrase 'class action lawsuit' denotes that the largest
segment of society is rendered an ineligible voter status, like Women, Blacks, non-property
owning Whites, Slaves and Native Americans, as well as those males not having reached
an established age of majority (or believed in maturity). The overall public is not
permitted to vote on any and all issues they would want to. They are subjected to an
antiquated notion of one's "betters" that was prevalently observed in the past.
Let us look at a description of the American colonial mentality with respect to
voting rights, and keep in mind that this perspective is rampant today, though it
is cloaked under the garment of "voting rights" which promotes the illusion of
being able to vote because of a so-called established Democracy, but actually denies
a full expression thereof... and yet we praise the Founding Fathers for setting
up such a hypocritical system:

Voting in Early America

At its birth, the United States was not a democratic nation—far from it.
The very word "democracy" had pejorative overtones, summoning up images of disorder,
government by the unfit, even mob rule. In practice, moreover, relatively few of the
nation's inhabitants were able to participate in elections: among the excluded were
most African Americans, Native Americans, women, men who had not attained their
majority, and white males who did not own land.

John Adams, signer of the Declaration of Independence and later president, wrote
in 1776 that no good could come from enfranchising more Americans:

Depend upon it, Sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy
and altercation as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of
voters; there will be no end to it. New claims will arise:

Women will demand the vote;

Lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to;

And every man who has not a farthing, will demand an equal voice with any other,
in all acts of state.

It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks to
one common level.

Colonial Voting restrictions reflected eighteenth-century English notions about
gender, race, prudence, and financial success, as well as vested interest. Arguments
for a white, male-only electorate focused on what the men of the era conceived of
as the delicate nature of women and their inability to deal with the coarse realities
of politics, as well as convictions about race and religion. African Americans and
Native Americans were excluded, and, at different times and places, the Protestant
majority denied the vote to Catholics and Jews. In some places, propertied women,
free blacks, and Native Americans could vote, but those exceptions were just that.
They were not signs of a popular belief in universal suffrage.

Property requirements were widespread. Some colonies required a voter to own a
certain amount of land or land of a specified value. Others required personal property
of a certain value, or payment of a certain amount of taxes. Examples from 1763 show
the variety of these requirements. Delaware expected voters to own fifty acres of
land or property worth £40. Rhode Island set the limit at land valued at £40 or
worth an annual rent of £2. Connecticut required land worth an annual rent of £2
or livestock worth £40.

Such requirements tended to delay a male colonist's entry into the voter ranks
until he was settled down and established. They reflected the belief that freeholders,
as property owners were called, had a legitimate interest in a community's success
and well-being, paid taxes and deserved a voice in public affairs, had demonstrated
they were energetic and intelligent enough to be trusted with a role in governance,
and had enough resources to be independent thinkers not beholden to the wealthiest
class. English jurist William Blackstone wrote in the 1700s:

The true reason of requiring any qualification, with regard to property, in
voters, is to exclude such persons as are in so mean a situation that they are
esteemed to have no will of their own. If these persons had votes, they would be
tempted to dispose of them under some undue influence or other. This would give a
great, an artful, or a wealthy man, a larger share in elections than is consistent
with general liberty.

Generally speaking, some people think that a true "Peoples Government", where
an Actual Democracy was practiced, there would be chaos. This is the sentiment
held by those of the 1700's who think that a few people elected to office, are an
adequate Representation of all ideas. Common ideas perhaps, but surely not creative
nor original ideas. Whereas the notions of Democracy are now considered common knowledge,
even though the notions are not widely defined in the same manner; the idea of a
Democracy was once a creative, an original conception. Someone that was not of the
"common stock", who did not share in the so-called common sense, had to coin the
word, while others may have contributed to a clearer distinction of an idea in its
pristine moments of development. Hence, the point to be made is that the so-called
proportioned form of Representation does not provide a provision for those who
think creatively, originally, and on the genius level, though the American Government
has been referred to as the "Genius of the People".

The current form of Democracy is a sham. It severely limits the access of the
majority to fully participate in the legislation and developmental vote of laws.
The fears of instituting a "Class Action Democracy" by way of a Cenocracy are those
who either fear a loss of their current control, or those who are afraid of anything
new, regardless of context. A Class Action Democracy is a virgin wilderness that
Americans should be the first to forge ahead into with its own unique vision. Though
individual trail blazers exist in different places on the Earth, in different subject
areas, the task for establishing such a Cenocracy should be participated in by the
entire nation, as the dedicated role of a world leader.

And yet, though many of us see the mentality of Colonial America as a type of
Irrationality we would not want to participate in, we of today are experiencing
our own Age of Irrationality because of the severe limitations placed on our Right
to vote on various social topics of public concern. This situation is increase to
manifold proportions when it is coupled with the repressiveness being doled out by
many of those sitting on judicial benches... who want to strip the means by which
the public has in dealing with those who want to do away with government rules and
regulations, just so they can effect to take advantage of the people.

For some of us, it's like having traveled back in time to an early era of
nonsense, where incredibly stingy voting rights were accepted as being just as logical
as limited voting Rights of today. Imagining oneself walking amongst those who viewed
such antiquated voting limitations as just, if not natural; is easily accomplished
by comparing such a mentality to that which is held as appropriate today with respect
to voting rights and social issues. Whereas the people look normal, and dress normal
according to the clothing standards of the era, and may even be esteemed as an expert
in one field or another, if not respected for a given intelligence; their collective
muted deference to the stupidity of voting observances of today bespeaks of a deep-seated
ignorance. No doubt that if someone in the future ventured to our present time, they
might well keep their distance for fear of being labeled as an "outsider" because they
don't share in the prevailing types of accepted irrational thinking. Indeed, some of us
are better suited to live in the future just like on some occasions we might encounter
a person whose behavior (and mentality) seems better suited, more adept for the
accepted social currents of a past age.

It's like looking into the eyes of a domesticated beast of burden who can utter
familiar vocal sounds, have an interest in the same foods, and yet we are unable
to see any semblance of a type of humanity to be desired... unless it is to be pitied,
because no matter how diligently one tries to free them of the fetters used by the
current models of falsified Democracy: some are oblivious to the needed comprehension,
others are fearful of removing themselves from the familiarity of their life routines,
and still others want simply to engage in another illusion by substituting the present
shackles with another form of uniform enslavement... name badges and all. And example
of this is the delusion that electing one person over another to fill an authoritative
position, there will be lasting change... and yet the underlying structure of governance
places limitations on how much progress can be made. If it can't be made to fit in the
current governing scheme, then it must be a wrong design, a wrong idea... because the
type of governance we practice with respect to its formalized schematic, is the best
and only way to run a system... and to change it goes against an accepted and respected
inviolable tradition. We are permitted to change the players, change the uniforms,
change the names of positions and other incidentals, but not the game itself.

Nonetheless, some of us will fight for a Cenocracy... a New Government... a change
in the game, even if many in the present do not fully comprehend what is being offered,
they can nonetheless set the stage for their children and childrens' children to benefit
therefrom.